JACKSONVILLE, FLA.—I’m an engineer
by profession, but I want to put on an editorial
hat and write about an important matter
that is, in many ways only tangentially
about technology.

I’m talking about master control… literally
(to a degree) and figuratively to make
my point.

As public broadcasters, our mandate is
to deliver high-quality programming with
a local flavor that would not otherwise
be available to the communities we serve.
However, a large portion of our funding to
do that comes from federal grants, small
portions of state and local tax revenue, plus
corporate and individual support, all of
which are subject to the ongoing pressures
that budget builders face.

While financial support for capital purchasing
diminishes, we are expected to deliver
more content to multiple, ever-diverse
platforms to keep faith with those who
have not only funded us, but rely on PTV-distributed
content for specialized entertainment,
news and information.

That content emanates from a master
control room, which is the heart of any
broadcast operation. The difficulty is that
there are now too many individual MCR’s,
which is why I believe it would be more efficient
to centralize those functions among
station groups.

CONSIDERING CONSOLIDATION
As much fun as they were to specify,
install and operate, the majority of master
control rooms installed in the early 2000s
are now approaching end of life. From my
point of view, I see no financially sound
way to continue to support—or rebuild—
each of them to meet modern demands.

Many PTV stations are struggling to stay
financially viable and, as a result, on air. We
can waste time wringing our hands over
the best way to provide real-time linear
feeds to transmitters, but that ignores the
elephant in the room, which is the fact that
our future hinges on our willingness to play
nice with each other, not accumulate toys
we can no longer afford.

Each local PTV broadcaster likes to think
it is unique. The truth is that we are much
the same. We distribute much of the same
content and make many of the same decisions
with similar schedules. We also face
the same challenges.

What we do is not who we are. What I
mean by that is, rather than being identified
as “people who make television,” we
are better defined as an indispensable
community asset. I recognize that for
many, that’s not necessarily an easy distinction
to make. Visitors to our facilities,
be they politicians, local dignitaries or
members of the public, want to evaluate
their asset, but for many that means getting
their picture taken in the MCR. That’s
great for the PR department but does little
to illustrate the hard technical scrabble to
deliver the tangible assets (i.e., the programming)
taking place just beyond the
control room door. Very few visitors care
about the technical route the content
takes to arrive in their homes as long as
it gets there.

An understanding of how the MCR
works and what it costs to drive it is lost on
most. Therefore why, I submit, does every
station need one? Why not combine MCRs
into a single hub among a station group and
save lots of money? Seems an easily won
argument to me.

Duane Smith

PTV stations can leverage advantages
they have over commercial stations by
pooling and exploiting their assets. For
example, the majority of PTV stations do
not produce live news, which is typically a
cash-hungry endeavor; and our programming
schedules are not overly dynamic.
Those similarities are advantages that can
be streamlined to the benefit of our type
of broadcast operations and, ultimately, our
respective audiences.

Many commercial broadcasters have already
taken steps to control more and more
video streams from centralized hubs. PTV
station groups can do the same. The playout
workload alone across a station group
can be dramatically reduced. Moreover, aggregating
content enables an operations
center to be much more agile with that
content once delivery processes to new
distribution models are perfected. It also
conserves substantial capital and operating
expenditures by not having to capture,
manipulate and store identical content in
multiple locations.

GRASSROOTS LEVEL
Fortunately, there has been a recent
groundswell among local PTV station management
and engineering teams to discuss
and, in some cases, start implementing
centralization plans. It’s not a “top down”
initiative as is more typical in larger commercial
groups, but a grassroots “uprising”
by broadcast professionals with feet on the
ground in their local communities.

This realization is perhaps best manifested
by describing where things stand where
I am privileged to work, JCT Services LLC, a
subsidiary of WJCT Public Broadcasting in
Jacksonville, Fla.

WJCT is a charter member of a partnership
that includes 11 public television
stations that are currently centralizing
their master control and network operations
centers in Jacksonville as part of an
initiative by the not-for-profit Digital Convergence
Alliance. The new facility will
initially serve WTTW in Chicago; MPTV,
Milwaukee; KERA, Dallas; WPBT, Miami;
WUCF, Orlando; WJCT, Jacksonville; WFSU,
Tallahassee; WILL, Urbana Ill.; WBCC, Cocoa;
WEDU, Tampa; and WPBA, Atlanta. The
DCA is actively campaigning for more stations
to join the alliance. The more that
join, the more cost savings can be achieved
by all of them. The Corporation for Public
Broadcasting, which provided the initial
funding for the project, has already stated
that it foresees savings of $15-$20 million
over 10 years.

The DCA has a wider aim than just being
an operational hub where content is aggregated
and disseminated. It is a community
“white board” where ideas and opportunities
are shared and built upon, utilizing the
DCA’s network operations center as the
infrastructure where such initiatives are developed
and implemented to the benefit of
the alliance’s constituents.

I liken the collaborative nature of this
approach to a “statistical multiplexer.” The
more inputs (users) it has, the more efficient
it becomes. It is critically important to
understand that highly productive partnerships
can be built by forming meaningful
relationships within the public broadcasting
system. A centralized operations center
can leverage the respective skill sets of users
to expand its services—and bargaining
power—therefore becoming a more powerful
coalition.

For example, if one user has a satellite
uplink, it can offer that service to the group.
If another user is blessed with a top-flight
graphics department, it can offer those services
at a competitive rate. It doesn’t take
much imagination to see all sorts of advantages.

When considering joining a combined
master operation, keep in mind that the
decision making should not be focused
solely on master control. It has to be about
evaluating the strategic and tactical advantages
offered by being a part of a group of
likeminded folks working toward common
goals.

Duane Smith is vice president for the
Network Operations Center at JCT Services.

Print

Email

Share

Comments

Post New CommentIf you are already a member, or would like to receive email alerts as new comments are
made, please login or register.

Enter the code shown above:

(Note: If you cannot read the numbers in the above
image, reload the page to generate a new one.)

First of all, the title of this article is misleading, as the real subject of this article is master control, not production.
As an engineer and career broadcaster in the PBS system, I respectfully disagree with this idea. Centralization may be great for a commercial network group, but it is a disaster for public TV.
We have been hearing this particular story from CPB for a number of years now, and I even know of cases where they have tried to force small PTV stations to centralize.
First of all, what is wrong with local operation? Isn't broadcasting about localism? Although the internet might make the world smaller, TV stations tend to be spread out over a large area geographically, because they cover specific pieces of geography. And this is where the centralization argument begins to break down.
A local broadcaster, equipped with their own master control system (Which does not have to be manned 24/7, or in some cases, manned much at all) has the greatest flexibility to met the needs of the local community. They are in a much better position to respond to a local situation or emergency, and they are much more immune to 'backhoe fade'. A local master control can operate at much higher bandwidths to ensure the final product looks as good as it can (and this really does make a difference). A modern master control can even be constructed economically with the now-popular 'channel in a box' solutions. And these box solutions keep getting better.
In talking to other PBS engineers, there is only significant savings if you have high priced labor, like what exists in big cities. Small market stations can often run a master control operation for far less per signal than a big market.
If you eliminate your local origination infrastructure, you can fire those expensive engineers (who plague you by telling you why some idea won't work, and they are usually right in the end), right? But what happens when you really need an engineer? You have to hire someone at a very high price to come in and make something right, and possibly experience considerable downtime in the process. And once you do away with competent engineers, it may be hard to find one when you need one.
And what do you do during network outages? You still need some infrastructure for local origination, unless you like black.
PBS stations can best meet the needs of their market by being local. There is nothing wrong with 300+ copies of 'Masterpiece Theater', if they are available when and where they are needed.
And of course, you still need production. Production is the heart and soul of public TV. The PBS system, unlike networks, is the sum total of its local stations. You are not saving all that much in CAPEX (buzzword!!) if you need to also support production.
Sometimes, saving money does not create the best value for viewers. The best value for viewers is when a station can meet the needs of its market, and has the autonomy to do so. Centralization kills autonomy. Centralization leaves you totally at the mercy of the centralcaster. And since you have to spend that money anyway, why not spend it in keeping your operation local, where it belongs?

Won't the TV Stations that make this move also need to re-allocate some of the "savings" to transmission costs, redundancy and risk mitigation?
When the central MCR goes down, from causes ranging from labor strife to natural disaster to terrorism to human error, when distribution for 10 stations representing 20 million viewers is disrupted, or when resources at the central location are reduced even in part or unavailable for ANY reason, what then?
And, who prioritizes rescue operations? Does Chicago get first response, or Detroit or Miami? Regardless of the plan and contract details, what do you think will be the reality? Pity the smallest station in the group.
As noted in the article, MCR is the heart of the TV station. Deciding to outsource your heart is a "grave" decision.
I hope that most PBS stations will not follow the lead of these that seem to have put all their eggs in a [far-away] basket.

Duane's article is interesting, while a bit vague about the specific details of the Florida project, the expected technology outcome, and effect on labor. In the end, contrary to what Tim replied, centralization can be an enabler for public stations to commit resources to core mission requirements and away from the 'broadcast factory'. Since public stations have great overlap in programming combining operations can lead to great efficiencies in handling media, both at the time of prep and in bulk storage requirements.
One thing Tim's comment misses is that the goal of centralization is not to eliminate 'engineers', but rather to put technology to best use, freeing staff and budgets to create compelling content. Tim is obviously concerned about eliminating all local facilities. That is absolutely not the goal of centralization of air operations. Local infrastructure is still needed for production, including pledge programming that airs live. In fact some local disaster recovery capability is a core requirement of any good centralization plan.
He also fears the loss of autonomy. No successful centralization plan in public broadcasting would reduce autonomy. Indeed, local traffic creates the playlist in both local and centralized operations. With modern automation and traffic tightly integrated with NRT the job of master control becomes less operational anyway. Traffic should be fixing errors in the log BEFORE it is sent to automation, nbot relying on MCR to fix it in the middle of the night.
He is spot on about the role of CIAB (channel in a box) systems. But what he fails to take note of is that in a centralized operation it is possible to have entire spare air chains (CIABs) which can quickly replace any failed channel, and also allow for orderly system maintenance. CIAB systems operating in a local "cloud" infrastructure become highly flexible. Centralizing bulk storage is considerably more efficient use of capital, and lends itself to archive management that is similarly more efficient and able to scale more easily.
In short a well thought out centralization plan offers public broadcasters the best of all worlds. More efficient use of capital, higher degree of redundancy, freedom to use staff labor to create more compelling content instead of long hours watching the automation log, and a natural path to sharing regionally created content in collaboration with other stations.
As with any change, the fear of technological change is often worse than embracing it and making change work on your behalf.
John Luff, Consultant to PBS stations, and SMPTE Fellow

The FAA’s current rules and proposed ban on flight over people, requirement of visual line of sight and restriction on nighttime flying, effectively prohibit broadcasters from using UAS for newsgathering. ~ WMUR-TV General Manager Jeff Bartlett